Skip to main content

The First SUI Sling Case Tried - Defendant J&J Wins But More SUI Mesh Trials are Set for 2014

At this point in time, anyone attuned to the news surrounding transvaginal mesh lawsuits has heard of several large verdicts surrounding Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) mesh kit litigation.

However, in 2014, there are multiple trials set for the mass of TVM cases out there – the Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI) sling meshes (also known as “Bladder Slings”).  The question for most people involved in a transvaginal mesh lawsuit is “what is going to happen with the SUI Sling/Bladder Sling cases?”

The first SUI sling case concluded a little over 1 month ago in the Lewis v. Johnson & Johnson case.  It was a devastating loss for the plaintiff.  The plaintiff left the courtroom with a defense ruling and ZERO $0 in monetary damages.

At the end of the Plaintiffs’ case (and before the case was submitted to the jury), Judge Goodwin made a ruling that the plaintiff's counsel had “failed to present sufficient evidence to support her claim that a defect in the device caused her injury.”  This ruling was in response to Johnson & Johnson’s motion at the close of the Plaintiff’s case in chief.  Johnson & Johnson’s attorneys argued fiercely for what ended up being the key issue: that although the Plaintiffs articulated several specific design defects in the Johnson & Johnson TVT SUI Sling device (for example, mesh shrinkage and contraction), was there enough evidence that the TVT’s alleged design defects were present in this particular plaintiff’s case in order to cause this particular plaintiff’s alleged injuries?  Ultimately, lack of case-specific evidence (for example – evidence by way of pathology or solid expert testimony linking the defect to the plaintiff) was the ultimate decider for this Plaintiff’s case.  Unfortunately, Judge Goodwin did not rule in favor of the Plaintiff.  For future cases, this trial result may be a warning to future cases with regard to being able to prove specific causation.  In other words, it is one thing to allege “general” complaints about pain, urinary symptoms, and other mesh-related symptom allegations after receiving a SUI Bladder sling; however, it is another thing to have to prove that the mesh is the cause of the complained symptoms in a court of law.  Under many state product liability legal standards, proving a design defect and a connection is not as easy as making “generalized” complaints.  Under most state laws, you have to prove your case with a reasonable degree of medical and scientific certainty.

The Plaintiff’s attorneys in this case fought hard.  Unfortunately, they were faced with some difficult rulings from Judge Goodwin for a difficult case (which was a case picked for the trial by the Defendant Johnson & Johnson – NOT the Plaintiff’s attorneys).  Did Judge Goodwin “get it right?”  That is the subject of endless debate.  However, one thing is for certain:  at the end of the day, Bladder Sling cases are very difficult cases to try and to win.  The cases are full of plaintiff-specific nuances, physician issues, and many other treacherous legal pitfalls that must be navigated with near perfection in order to result in a win.

But all is not lost for transvaginal mesh lawsuits.  This trial was only the first of many more SUI Sling/Bladder Sling lawsuits set for 2014.   Johnson & Johnson continues to fight hard with no signs of settlement anywhere near the horizon for this medical manufacturer giant.

Meanwhile, other transvaginal mesh lawsuits are seeing signs of settlement – with some TVM manufacturers eager to “get out” of the lawsuit war.  Some manufacturers have indicated willingness to settle, but the question remains: “what is a fair value for these cases?”  Danish company Coloplast has set aside about $16 million USD to settle some cases against it, while another manufacturer, Endo Health Solutions Inc. (the parent corporation of American Medical Systems), paid $54 million last year to settle its cases.  Right now, the settlements are not resulting in very high numbers for claimants.  Under the Coloplast and Endo/AMS settlements, manufacturers are paying an “average” case value of about $40,000 dollars per case.  The value of the individual’s settlement is, as always, HIGHLY dependent on that individuals’ case-specific factors.  Of course, what also plays a role in settlements is the “track record” of wins versus losses in the trial arena.  So far, one SUI Sling case has resulted in a $0 zero-sum result for the Plaintiff.  Only time will tell the future results as trials move forward.

If you have experienced complications because of a mesh product, call today for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your transvaginal mesh lawsuit.

Customize This